Obama: Don't Destroy the Peace Process by Turning it Over to the U.N.

The Obama Administration is sending strong signals that once the election is over it may make a major push to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the United Nations. Despite repeated invitations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Palestinian Authority President Abbas to meet without preconditions, the stalemate persists. Some blame it on Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish People and to compromise to the so-called "right of return." Others — including the current U.S. Administration — lay the blame largely at the feet of the Netanyahu government for continuing to build in the West Bank, most recently approval of between 98 and 300 new homes in Shiloh. Whatever the reasons – and they are complex and multifaceted — President Obama should resist any temptation, during his final weeks in office, to change longstanding American policy — that only direct negotiations between the parties will achieve a lasting peace.

In particular, Obama should veto an expected French resolution in the Security Council establishing an international peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. The general parameters of the French resolution would likely call for:

"Borders based on the 1967 Lines with agreed equivalent land swaps; security arrangements preserving the sovereignty of the Palestinian State and guaranteeing the security of Israel; a fair, equitable, and negotiated solution to the refugee problem; an arrangement making Jerusalem the capital of both states."

These guidelines may sound reasonable. Indeed, they are strikingly similar to the offers made to and reject by the Palestinian leadership in 2000-2001 from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former U.S. President Bill Clinton, and in 2008 by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The U.N., however, has disqualified itself from playing any constructive role in the peace process. Recent attempts by the U.N. to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have produced unmitigated disasters. The so-called Goldstone Report, which sought to investigate allegations of war crimes committed during the 2009 Israeli intervention in Gaza, was so blatantly biased against Israel that Richard Goldstone himself had to retract some of its key findings in 2011.

Since then, the U.N. has done nothing to reassure Israel that it is capable of offering an unbiased forum for negotiations. In the past year alone, the U.N. has singled out Israel for special criticism on issues like health rights, and most laughably, women's rights, while failing even to mention regimes whose record on these issues is truly abominable. Last year alone, at least twenty separate resolutions were adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, which singled out Israel for special criticism. Most recently UNESCO attempted to erase millennia of Jewish history with regard to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In light of such behavior, the U.S. should not trust that Israel would receive a fair hearing at any U.N. sponsored peace conference.

As Netanyahu said in his most recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly, "The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York." In other words, the only way forward for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is bilateral negotiations between the two parties. Netanyahu and Abbas must sit down and agree to necessary but painful compromises aimed at establishing a Palestinian state, while addressing Israel's security concerns, and the realities on the ground. Resolutions such as the proposed French resolution undermine such efforts by encouraging the Palestinians to believe that direct negotiations — and the mutual sacrifices they would entail — are unnecessary, and that a Palestinian state can be achieved on the basis of U.N. resolutions alone. It would also make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the Palestinian Authority to accept anything less than that already given them by the U.N. — which would in turn guarantee the failure of any realistic negotiations.

It is for these and other reasons that American policy has long been to veto or otherwise derail U.N. attempts to interfere with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process even when it is stalled. As President Obama said in 2013:

"We seek an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. The only way to achieve that goal is through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians themselves."

Hillary Clinton, too, has stated in the past, that she supports bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, and her campaign has said that she "believes that a solution to this conflict cannot be imposed from without." So, too, has Donald Trump.

Recently, however, several past and present Obama officials have apparently advised the president to support, or at least not veto the French resolution, as well as a one-sided Palestinian push to have the U.N. declare Israeli settlements illegal. It would be wrong — and undemocratic — for Obama to unilaterally reverse decades of U.S. foreign policy during the lame duck period. After all, in 2011 his administration vetoed an almost identical Palestinian proposal that called for Israel to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem". Similarly, until now, Obama has repeatedly pressured the French and other European nations not to put forward any proposal related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the grounds that such initiatives discourage bilateral negotiations. This is surely the view of the majority of the Senate, which has its own constitutional authority to participate in foreign policy decisions. In fact, 88 senators signed an open letter to Obama in which they called on the President to veto any Security Council resolutions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The period between the election and the inauguration is the only time a president can act without the checks and balances of American democracy. He should not take action that would tie the hands of his successor.

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the UN General Assembly's seventy-first session, September 20, 2016. (Image source: United Nations)

Obama must realize that no lasting peace can be achieved in the remaining months of his presidency: there are a multitude of complex and contentious issues — most notably the status of Jerusalem, the rights of so-called Palestinian refugees, and the situation in Gaza — that must be thoroughly addressed in order to achieve a lasting peace. Our next president will undoubtedly have to wade into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process again. The new administration — with the agreement of the Senate — should have full latitude to do what it deems most appropriate. It should not be stuck with parameters bequeathed to it by a President desperate to secure a short-term foreign policy "victory" that in the long term will make a resolution of the conflict more difficult to achieve.

If Obama feels that he must intrude in an effort to break the logjam before he leaves office, he should suggest that the current Israeli government offer proposals similar to those offered in 2000- 2001 and 2008 and that this time the Palestinian leadership should accept them in face-to face negotiations. But he should take no action (or inaction) that invites U.N. involvement in the peace process — involvement that would guarantee failure for any future president's efforts to encourage a negotiated peace.

We should hear the views of both candidates on whether the U.S. should support or veto a Security Council resolution that would tie their hands were they to be elected president. It is not too late to stop President Obama from destroying any realistic prospects for peace.

Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus and author of Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law and Electile Dysfunction. An earlier and somewhat different version of this article appeared in the Boston Globe.

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.

19 Reader Comments

Michael Fox • Nov 2, 2016 at 17:28

Obama is a lame shmuck President trying to feather his resume in his final weeks as President. For him it's all about his legacy. His position during Israel's defending its nation and citizens from the terrorist organization, Hamas during Operation Protective Edge was shameful. Sending his Secretary of State Kerry (Lurch) to spank the Israeli's for defending their country from rocket, mortar and tunnel attacks, opened the floodgates of latent anti-Semitism in Europe. The punishment for Europe is that it is on its way too fulfilling its destiny in becoming part of the Islamic empire.

Reply->

Bar Kokhba Michael Fox • Nov 4, 2016 at 02:26

Never forget that Obama was buddies for years with Phakestinian propagandist Rashid Khalidi.

Obama gave a farewell address when RK moved to a new job. The LA Times has been sitting on a tape of this address since 2008 - apparently its publication would hurt Obama's political viability even now.

Publicly, Obama has promised the shiftless Phakestinians a CONTIGUOUS state. Look at the map to see what this means in practice.

The holy grail for nihilists like Obama would be the establishment of a JUDENREIN "Palestine" coupled with physical annihilation of ALL Jews. (Note: That's ALL JEWS, NOT just all Israeli Jews.)

Reply->

Harvey • Nov 2, 2016 at 14:06

It beggars belief that the antisemitic Arabs still attest any right to the land which is now Israel. How a rabble of vagabonds and terrorists and their sick supporters can either contemplate a two state solution when they can't even police Gaza which since Israel gave it them back in 2005 is just amazing. Their is no peace process period while Abbas Hamas and all the other antisemitic garbage want rid of Israel period. Let Obama and his cronies give California and Texas back to the Spainish for starters then the buffoon can start talking of peace, I and many others are sick to death of the misfortunes of the backward thinking murderous Arab world.

Reply->

Tess • Nov 2, 2016 at 10:32

Alan has been one of Obama's staunchest supporters through 2 elections when signs of his anti Israel animosity was apparent. Now he is endorsing HRC and the anti Israel Democratic Party. I'm tired of reading his lip service articles about Israel when his liberal political actions and support have been to those who work against Israel. Elections have consequences and we need a change of heart and mind within our political system to turn this anti Israel anti Jewish tide in our country.

Reply->

richard sherwin • Nov 2, 2016 at 01:00

Whether Obama hands the non peace process over to the UN -- where it's guaranteed to try to screw Israel and renew the Palestinians free pass from all obligations-- or not, it's clear he wants 'out' of Israel altogether, and Mid East as much as possible. Which he's been doing steadily since coming into office. Israel's roadkill as far as white house concerned; if not for congress, we'd have been left splattered.... don't know if he's 3d world interested at all, don't know actually what his priorities internationally are, except more isolationism.... talk talk talk treaties and let the bad guys run things while out to do down the USA and sponging off of it at the same time.. the UN's a perfect place for this....

Reply->

David Borhani • Nov 1, 2016 at 23:04

He's right, nothing more need be said. Twenty years, and thousands of lives, wasted by the doomed-to-never-succeed Oslo "process." And where are we now? Palestinian Authority still teaching Jew hatred and that they will retake all of Palestine (Jaffa, Acre, Tiberius, Haifa---all west of the Green Line---and of course "al-Quds", known for thousands of years before that by the Hebrew name, Yerushalayim [Jerusalem]).

Reply->

Joe Ruda • Nov 1, 2016 at 16:44

It is unlikely that even Obama is unaware of the damage to Israel that would be caused by an American failure to veto one-sided UNSC resolutions. He also must know that such a move will make little headway in establishing peace or a two-state solution. So what is his goal? What does he hope to achieve?

Further it is unlikely that Obama would chose to punish the Jews in Israel and the world over for a personality dispute with its elected prime minister. Even his ego is not that inflated.

Obama's vision of the world is one without a Jewish state and therefore without Jews.

Though Mr. Dershowitz is well known for his logic and legal expertise, there is no logic or legality behind Obama's pending move against Israel. And i do not believe any logic will sway him.

This parting shot is aimed at Israel's heart. To understand Obama's animus towards the children of Jacob, one must look deep into his past.

Reply->

Alvin Samuels • Nov 1, 2016 at 16:29

Palestine is a creation of Mubarak and Arafat. The Palestinians never existed. Only itinerant Bedouins lived on the land as vagrants.

Reply->

Leon Poddebsky • Nov 1, 2016 at 15:48

No UN resolution, no act on the part of the USA or France can change the mindset of 'Palestinian' Arab society or the wider Arab world that they are the victims of an historic injustice.Such a resolution would merely strengthen them in their self-delusion, and that would perpetuate the conflict.The key to true peace is altering the pernicious mindset.There are precedents: the USA and its allies changed the mindsets of German and Japanese societies following the latters' defeat in World War Two.

Reply->

Daniel Siminiuk • Nov 1, 2016 at 12:54

Does Obama, or any left wing hack, ever wonder about Jordan? That the same law which permits the Jordanians to live on "Palestinian" land is the same law that permits Israelis to live on the same land. It was all the region of Palestine at one time, and then it was not.

Reply->

Delboy Trotter Daniel Siminiuk • Nov 1, 2016 at 15:02

You are quite right but the main difference between the two sets of circumstances is that Jordan isn't Israel; the Jordanians aren't Jewish and Obama appears to favour Muslims over Jews. It's that simple really; yes! It probably is! I would add that originally the whole area was Israel. But no one seems to care about that.

Reply->

Ron Thompson • Nov 1, 2016 at 12:37

The primary reason Obama has the opportunity to commit this radical error, a virtual stab in the back, is because of the strategic mistake of Western leaders in not long since having taken the misguided policy of supporting a Palestinian State OFF THE TABLE.For almost 70 years, Palestinian leaders have refused either to accept the existence of Israel before the international community, or to educate their people to recognize the right of the Jewish people to a State in that people's ancestral homeland and to cultivate a mindset of peace, goodwill, andcooperation-for-mutual-benefit with that people. (Only the gullible accepted that there was ever any sincere acceptance of Israel's existence as mouthed by Arafat - and Abbas doesn't even do that).Many will now froth and foam at the mouth, "Every people has the Right to Self-Determination!!"Well, no, not unconditionally.After the German and Japanese people obeyed their leaders in waging aggressive and unprovoked war against their neighbors, and lost the that war, they forfeited their right to self-determination. That's some 200,000,000 million people who lost that 'sacred' right, until they convincingly demonstrated a National change of mindset and heart. Having done that, they fully recovered their Right of Self-Determination 10 years later, in 1955.At least since the refusal of the Palestinian and other Arab leaders refusal to negotiate peace with Israel over 40 years ago at the Morocco meeting of 1974, the West should have immediately countered by taking their support for a Palestinian State OFF THE TABLE. Not doing that has not only incentivized the intransigence of the Palestinians and other enemies of Israel's existence, but it has, in recent years, increasingly motivated the forces of appeasement to attack Israel's existence rather than to recognize and reject the veto power of the rejectionists.Continuing support for a Palestinian State has legitimized the indefensible.What Obama may be contemplating is profoundly wrong. But he wouldn't have the opportunity if we did not have these decades of the mindless acceptance by other Western leaders of the Palestinian (and majority Arab and Muslim world) refusal to accept the existence of Israel.
No people should have the right of self-determination to found a State based on a pledge to exterminate another State and people. Rejecting support for a Palestinian State would explicitly establish that valuable precedent in International law, and would go far to redress a 40 (or 70) year-old mistake.

Reply->

stevenl Ron Thompson • Nov 1, 2016 at 14:49

The support of the West for the "Palestinians" is only the continuation of two thousand years of the war of the West against the Jews. Not ONCE has the Western world put any pressure on the "Pal". That says EVERYTHING! UNRWA was created and financially supported ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY by the West for the SOLE purpose and long term goal of eradicating Israel! The UN has given-up any pretense when it comes to the Jewish problem. The UN is the epicenter of international antisemitism. For Obama and the antisemites perhaps: a UNIQUE opportunity! Jews are on the side of ETHICS! Therefore at the end they will prevail.

Reply->

Andrew T. Halmay • Nov 1, 2016 at 11:46

If I were Netanyahu I would appoint Duterte of the Philippines to deal with Obama on my behalf. Aside from Trump, Duterte is the only statesman who handles Obama appropriately. As for the U.N. they have disgraced themselves once too often and need to be disbanded.

Reply->

JOHN ANSAH-SASRAKU • Nov 1, 2016 at 11:14

I wish to humbly submit that the two states must sit down and find lasting solution to their own problem than to be pushed by any power- after all they live there and know reality on the ground. Peace at all cost should be the center of the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Preserving or saving human life is paramount to anything else, lands, property and so on and so on should be subservient to peace.

Reply->

stevenl JOHN ANSAH-SASRAKU • Nov 1, 2016 at 15:02

It is a war of Islam against the Jews and later against the infidels! Second replacement theology!!!

Reply->

Liz Wagner • Nov 1, 2016 at 10:59

If Obama goes through with what he is rumored to be planning, it will be because he is, unquestionably, ruled by his commitment to the Third World enterprise, which latched on to the destruction of the Jewish state as a key milestone on the way to the ultimate destination: the toppling of the U.S., the world's most powerful capitalist nation.

Reply->

Frank Adam • Nov 1, 2016 at 10:29

If even Sec Kerry finds that the UN is obsessed with Israel at the expense of a lot of other business of greater consequence, then let us heap with letters suggesting he get through the UN a resolution limiting Palestine to one resolution a year of max 100 words - across the entire UNO in all its organs.

Reply->

tiki • Nov 1, 2016 at 08:23

It will be very hard for Obama to resist to finally get his 'revenge' on Netanyahu and the Jews.

He knows very well that no *major push or *last ditch or *ultimate effort will bring peace....on the contrary!

He knows very well that the Palestinian Arabs don't want peace with Israel but without Israel!